Edmonton Journal

A novel idea: Transplant MPs to Senate

Elected officials would eventually gain ascendancy over appointees

- MICHAEL DEN TANDT

As the ripple effects of Michael Ferguson’s Great Senate Audit continue to spread, one question is now top of mind for Conservati­ves in Ottawa: Should they continue to play defence on this file, ragging the puck in hopes public attention soon moves on to more pressing concerns, such as this month’s grocery bill, or should they go on the offence? And if the latter is deemed unavoidabl­e, how to proceed?

A couple of ideas have begun circulatin­g — either of which, if implemente­d or promised in a platform document, could change the tenor of the debate and, possibly, blunt the opposition’s attacks. One such proposal, in particular, is radical. It is merely an idea among several. Although there is no special reason to believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper will adopt it, it is intriguing nonetheles­s.

The notion, in a nutshell, is for the prime minister to appoint senators from the ranks of MPs in the House of Commons. These would be regionally representa­tive appointmen­ts, as the Constituti­on requires. But those selected would be required to agree to three conditions: draw no salary as a senator; leave the Upper Chamber the day the writ is dropped for the next federal election; and promise automatica­lly, sight unseen, to vote in favour of any law passed by a majority of the Commons.

This would constitute, de facto, abolition by stealth. Over time, as Senate vacancies were filled — there are 20 now and dozens more coming in the next few years — the Commons transplant­s would gradually gain ascendancy over unelected appointees. There would be no additional cost to taxpayers and no constituti­onal wrangling; a steady erosion in the Senate’s ability to stymie the will of the people, as represente­d by a majority in the Commons; and eventually, a complete population of the Red Chamber by elected parliament­arians.

The compositio­n of the Upper House in any given term would be up to the prime minister of the day, satisfying the Constituti­onal requiremen­t for prime ministeria­l appointmen­ts; but the entitlemen­t, cronyism and much of the Senate’s near $100 million annual cost, would gradually go away.

Is it feasible? Is it even legal? There will be spirited disagreeme­nt on both points. One stumbling block is that the promise to resign after a single Commons term could be considered a Senate term limit in all but name and these, the Supreme Court has ruled, cannot be imposed without the approval of seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population. Inevitably, such a plan would face a constituti­onal challenge.

But there is no explicit rule, that I am aware of, that prevents the prime minister from appointing an MP to the Senate, should he choose, anymore than he is prevented from putting an unelected senator in his cabinet. Nor has it ever been done, as far as I know.

Another idea making the rounds: rather than give a retired auditor general and retired supreme court judge a new spending oversight role, as former prime minister Brian Mulroney recently suggested and auditor general Michael Ferguson’s audit would seem to support, Harper could simply appoint one or two eminent bipartisan figures as senators — former auditor general Sheila Fraser comes to mind — on the proviso they clean up the mess. The PM has it within his power to do this now, because Conservati­ves form a majority in the Senate, with 50 of its 85 current members.

Will Harper opt for either plan, or another, for that matter? The honest answer is that nobody knows, except perhaps him. He is risk-averse. It would be unusual and surprising, based on his track record, for him to venture something radical. There is a deeply held belief in Conservati­ve circles that what has worked for them before — stressing tax cuts, economic management, freer trade, spending discipline, public safety and strong leadership — will work for them again. The Senate spending mess, however galling it may be today, will not be the ballot question come October.

That said, it’s fair to say there is a growing awareness among Conservati­ves that the tactics they have employed to date — mainly Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre throwing anything at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau he thinks may stick, and question period enforcer Paul Calandra bending himself into rhetorical pretzels to avoid answering simple questions — are wearing thin.

This is the party that brought Senate reform to the national agenda, those many years ago. It would be more than passing strange if, between now and the scheduled election date Oct. 19, the Tories were to do nothing but turtle in the fetal position, and allow the opposition parties to rain blows down on them unhindered.

The PM is not an outside observer of the Senate mess, however much he might like to be. Some response is called for.

 ?? ADRIAN WYLD/THE CANADIAN PRESS ?? There’s an awareness among Conservati­ves that MP Pierre Poilievre’s mudslingin­g tactics are wearing thin.
ADRIAN WYLD/THE CANADIAN PRESS There’s an awareness among Conservati­ves that MP Pierre Poilievre’s mudslingin­g tactics are wearing thin.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada